Sunday, June 10, 2018

Does Buddhist detachment allow for a healthier togetherness? | Aeon Essays

Does Buddhist detachment allow for a healthier togetherness? | Aeon Essays

Buddhists in love

Lovers crave intensity, Buddhists say craving causes suffering. Is it possible to be deeply in love yet truly detached?

Humans are social animals. We live in groups. We care for our offspring for years. We cooperate with each other (the United States Congress notwithstanding). Most of all, we have lasting relationships with other individual humans – what biologists call long-term pair bonds.

Some of these pair bonds, you've surely noticed, are healthier than others. That's where the field of relationship science comes in. Relationship scientists study how to build and maintain strong, intimate relationships. We perform laboratory experiments to understand the factors that make a relationship flourish or wither.

In recent years, some researchers in relationship science, including us, have turned to a surprising resource for inspiration: Buddhism. We say 'surprising' because one of the central tenets of Buddhism is letting go of strong attachments, but a relationship is the very definition of a strong attachment. How can these opposing ideas be reconciled? And what does science have to say?

Let's begin with some basics about biology. In a healthy relationship, you feel good when your partner is around. No surprise there. But you might not know that the good feeling happens because you and your partner regulate each other's nervous systems.

The process starts with your brain. Contrary to popular belief, your brain's most important job isn't thinking. It's maintaining all the biological systems in your body so your organs, hormones and immune system run efficiently and remain in balance. Your brain does this by predicting and fulfilling your bodily needs 24/7. If you need to stand up, for example, your brain predicts and executes a (hopefully) appropriate change in blood pressure so you don't faint. If your brain predicts you're going to be low on salt, you will crave salty foods. And so on.

This ongoing process is like running a budget for your body. Think about your financial budget, where you keep track of your income and spending to try to stay solvent. Your brain does the same thing, but instead of money, it budgets resources such as water, salt and glucose. If a financial budget goes into the red (say, when you take out a loan to buy a car), you have to pay back what you borrowed and, if all goes well, then over time your budget stays mostly in balance. The same is true for your body budget: you can run a race to exhaustion but then must replenish or 'pay back' your resources by resting, eating and drinking. The scientific name for this balancing act is allostasis. The brain's goal is to maintain a balanced body budget most of the time and to pay back any debts that arise. This process must be quick and efficient, because budget-balancing is itself a costly endeavour for the brain.

Now here's the cool part. Humans help to balance each other's body budgets. When a baby is born, the adults in her life regulate her body budget by feeding her, cuddling her and talking to her. They teach her when to fall asleep at the right time. They play games with her and read to her. These activities provide the body-budgeting she needs for her brain to develop normally. This is the biological basis of attachment between a child and her caregivers. Eventually, the child becomes able to regulate her own nervous system and balance her own body budget, but the communal body-budgeting never completely stops.

Attachment between adults works similarly. Most of us can clothe and feed ourselves and know when to put on a sweater to regulate our temperature, but we must also deal with the demands of a job, lack of sleep and no time to exercise, eating too many pseudo-foods, maybe living or working in noisy or crowded conditions, and battling the idiots who block our way now and then. Managing a body budget in this world is a monumental task. So, we need other people around us to help keep our budget solvent and stay healthy.

What's the cost of not having healthy attachments to other people? Scientists who study loneliness have provided a clear answer: a 30 per cent higher risk of death when those reporting isolation at the time of the initial interview were followed up seven years later. That's higher than the risk of dying from a well-known disease such as obesity. A single, lonely brain spends so many resources trying to keep in balance that it starts running a long-term deficit. The brain then treats the body like it's sick. If this process goes on for long enough, the immune system gets involved and the result could be earlier-onset diabetes, heart disease, depression, cancer or other illnesses related to metabolism.

Healthy relationships help you to live longer. You and your partner unconsciously regulate each other's nervous systems to your mutual benefit. Your heart rates synchronise. So does your breathing. Even your hormones align. In moments of stress, a hug, a light caress or a kind word from your partner helps to ease your body-budget burden. Sharing this burden is the biological basis of attachment.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Updates on everything new at Aeon.

The best thing for your nervous system is another person. Unfortunately, the worst thing for your nervous system is also another person. An unhealthy relationship can screw up your body budget and, with it, your health and your life. So what makes for a healthy or unhealthy relationship, and how do you maintain one? Buddhism offers a set of guidelines for how to treat your partner (and yourself) to minimise suffering. The logic here is not straightforward and requires some explanation, so here's a short primer on Buddhism.

Buddhism has been around for thousands of years. Some think of it as a religion, others as a set of principles for living a good life. Either way, millions of people in the Western world have realised that you needn't be a Buddhist to understand and try some of its ideas. Numerous books explain how to apply Buddhism to be happier, healthier and more mindful. But Buddhism is more than just a reason to buy a meditation cushion. It holds some ironic secrets to a more satisfying, quality relationship.

A key idea of Buddhism is that everything constantly changes. Any object, such as a red tulip in your garden, changes moment to moment. Its colours change depending on the light. The sheen on its petals changes depending on moisture in the air. Placed in the wrong location, such as a vegetable garden, a tulip ceases to be a flower and becomes a weed. The tulip has no single, unchanging essence. The same is true for you. You are real – you exist – but, from a Buddhist perspective, you have no intrinsic identity that is separate from the things going on around you. Your identity is constituted in the moment, in part, by your situation.

If you believe that you have a single, consistent, unchanging, core 'self' that uniquely defines you, this belief, according to Buddhist philosophy, is the foundation of human suffering. Here, suffering is not merely physical discomfort, like having the flu or shutting a door on your hand. Suffering is personal: you'll toil to avoid feeling flawed in some way. You'll constantly worry about your reputation or that you're failing to live up to standards created by others. In this sense, believing that you have one true self is worse than a passing physical illness; it is an enduring affliction (translation: a chronically imbalanced body budget).

Many people go through life believing that they have an unchanging, core identity. They usually also think that their friends, families, acquaintances and lovers have enduring selves as well. No wonder, because we describe ourselves in this way all the time. We go on dates and quiz each other about what we're like. In job interviews, the classic question is: 'Tell me about yourself.' Zillions of surveys you see online and in magazines ask you to describe yourself: are you an introvert or an extrovert? A dog person or cat person? When we answer these kinds of questions, we are almost always looking to reveal the unchanging features of a core, enduring identity.

Appreciate the tulip because it's there, not because you're there

Buddhism warns that the enduring self is an illusion. Instead, your 'self' depends on context. It's normal to be friendly in one situation, shy in another, and rude in a third. When you cling to the fiction that you have a real, enduring and important self – known as reifying the self – this sets you up for a miserable life. You will crave material things that bolster this fiction. You'll crave wealth. You'll crave power. You'll cling to compliments and adoration from others, even if they're lies. But the real problem here is not that others deceive you, but that you are deceiving yourself. These cravings are golden handcuffs that bring immediate pleasure but also, by reinforcing your illusory self, entrap you and cause persistent suffering, negative emotion, and enslavement to a fragile and fictional existence.

One of Buddhism's main tools to avoid reifying the self (or objects in the world) is mindfulness meditation. According to certain styles of Buddhist philosophy, all human experiences can be broken down into basic elements, kind of like 'atoms' that make up thoughts, feelings and perceptions. Wisdom, in Buddhist terms, means experiencing these basic elements directly, without the haze of cravings and desires that come along with the belief in an unchanging self. Mindfulness meditation can break through the illusion that objects and other people and even you are the same from moment to moment. Then we can see things as they truly are, experiencing each moment as raw sensation without implication beyond the moment itself.

For example, if you encounter an invasive tulip in your vegetable garden, you might be tempted to rip it out of the ground, or pick it to give to your lover. A Buddhist perspective would be that you're seeing the tulip through a filter of your own needs and desires, which are bound up with your illusory idea of self. To see the tulip as it truly is, you must let go of self-focused stories about the tulip – how it doesn't belong there, or how much your lover would like it – and experience the tulip in a way that's unrelated to your own needs. Notice its beautiful colour. Be awed by the power of nature. Experience the irony of a flower thriving among the legumes. Appreciate the tulip because it's there, not because you're there. In Buddhist philosophy, this is a key facet of wisdom.

What does this wisdom mean in practice? You can use it to access your own experience more clearly. When you feel furious and have a pounding heartbeat and a sweaty brow, it is easy to get caught up in a story about that fury and even fuel more of it. But meditation can help you attend to the heartbeat and the sweating as purely physical sensations, and let the anger dissolve. In Buddhist terminology, you're deconstructing your anger – and your illusory self – into its basic elements and gaining wisdom in the process. Deconstructing the self isn't easy: it can take years to become skilled at it (just ask a Buddhist monk), but it's possible with practice.

Another practical application of this wisdom is the simple recognition of change. A close look at the tulip reveals constant change, and that's true of you too. So, for example, you could be scrupulously honest one day and a cheating skunk the next, and neither one represents your true self because you don't have one. You are simply configured differently in the two situations. This kind of outlook can cultivate compassion for yourself when you behave badly or screw up. You're not intrinsically a bad person – you just behaved badly in some context.

The idea of a constantly changing self is echoed in modern psychology. Sometimes you represent yourself by your career. Sometimes you're a friend. Sometimes you're a parent, or a child, or a lover. Sometimes you're a musician, an artist, a cook, a handyman. Sometimes you're just a body. Social psychologists model this diversity as 'multiple selves', based on pioneering research in the 1980s by the social psychologist Hazel Markus, who showed that people have a repertoire of different selves for different occasions.

All of these ideas apply not only to your own self, but also to the selves of others. When you reify someone else, you mistake the person who is with you in the present moment as enduring in time, with no change. Thus, that 'psycho ex' whom you dated last year is both a 'psycho' and an 'ex' today and forever. This mindset is seen as a barrier to compassion that enhances suffering in the world. Instead, Buddhism suggests that you try to see other people as they actually are, even your nutty ex. When you don't reify them in terms of your own needs – think of the tulip here – you can more easily have compassion for them. In the process, you reduce their suffering and yours.

At first glance, Buddhism seems at odds with the scientific evidence that people are social animals. We know that strong attachments to other people are vital for your health; without them, you wither and die sooner. Buddhism, on the other hand, suggests that relationships involving strong attachments can be problematic, precisely because those attachments make it difficult to see ourselves and others clearly. But ironically, Buddhist thought also offers some compelling suggestions for building and maintaining healthy bonds that are echoed in the emerging science of relationships.

The first suggestion is don't reify your partner. Have you ever heard a friend complain about his partner (or ex), saying: 'He isn't the man I thought he was,' or 'She's a different person now'? In Buddhist terms, your friend is suffering because he reified his partner in the service of reifying himself. It's a common story. Two people meet, they get to know each other, and they experience strong feelings for each other based on that knowledge. In neuroscience terms, strong feelings for another person are always accompanied by the brain's beliefs of what the other person is like. Those beliefs, which neuroscientists call predictions, are like a filter through which you learn about and experience the other person in terms of your own needs. Such filters set you up to reify your fictional self and your partner.

Buddhist philosophy offers another route. Passion, desire and intensity of feeling aren't necessarily bad if you harness them to understand who the other person is – not an unchanging self, but an individual in a given situation. Go ahead and have strong feelings, but drop the story about your partner (that is, resist the predictions) accompanying those feelings. Instead, treat the feelings as a signal to learn who your partner is right now, in the moment. Be open to learning something new (or as neuroscientists put it, learning 'prediction error').

Relationship science suggests that romantic relationships are healthier when you and your partner see each other in an unrealistically positive light. This phenomenon, called positive illusions, involves exaggerating or even imagining positive qualities in your partner. Oddly enough, there's evidence that positive illusions can bolster healthy relationships. Couples who idealise one another feel more satisfied in their relationship. From a Buddhist perspective, however, these types of illusions usually emerge from the need to cling to your reified sense of self. In the long run, they can lead to unrealistic expectations and disappointment. Instead, try accentuating the positive without the illusions. People are more satisfied with their marriages when their spouses see virtues in them that they do not see themselves. An easy way to do this is to see your partner's actions in the most charitable light.

For example, suppose your spouse is inattentive to details, and shoves items into the refrigerator without considering what might get knocked over. You could frame this behaviour as stupidity, or in terms of the inconvenience it causes you, or even as a positive illusion ('He's an absent-minded genius'). Or instead, you could frame this behaviour in a more charitable light: that your spouse has a lot on his or her mind, or is getting older. You could even view your spouse's inattentiveness as a positive quality, like not noticing that new roll of pudge around your middle.

When you view your partner's actions in a charitable light, you're not creating a fiction, you're acknowledging the many possibilities for what your partner's actions mean. Like the tulip, your partner is ever-changing.

If you decline to fight, the conflict fizzles and provides an opportunity to flourish

But what if you and your partner's problems are more serious than a battle over fridge space? What if your partner utters snide remarks intended to cause you pain, or even takes a swing at your head? First and foremost, you have to make sure that you're physically safe. A Buddhist perspective would never be to stand there being mindful. But afterward, Buddhism offers a perspective on what to do next. Partners who let loose with abusive behaviour are trying to achieve some goal, often to make themselves feel better, bolster self-esteem and reify the self. They're confused about how to relieve their own suffering. If you understand the root of their aggression, it is easier to foster compassion and empathy for them. Compassion doesn't mean that you agree to be a punching bag. But it gives you space to consider ways to prevent others from harming you further, and from harming themselves.

A great example happened in December 2017 when the actress Sarah Silverman was trolled on Twitter by Jeremy Jamrozy, who called her a 'cunt'. Instead of firing back or ignoring the Tweet, Silverman responded with compassion. She read Jamrozy's Twitter profile and guessed that he was being abusive because he was in severe pain. She started a conversation with him, he apologised, and Silverman helped him look for a back specialist. The story went viral, and Jamrozy established a crowdfunding campaign for his $150 in medical expenses. The campaign raised more than $4,500 – all because Silverman took time to understand the feelings behind the insult. A battle requires two opponents, so if you decline to fight, then the conflict fizzles and provides an opportunity to flourish.

Of course, compassion sometimes isn't enough to help others out of the maze of their own confusion. Wisdom also means knowing when to quit the relationship. A Buddhist approach is to separate without being angry and vindictive. Anger is a form of ignorance of the other person's perspective. If you cannot dissolve that anger with an injection of mindfulness, then at the very least, try to shower a little compassion on yourself.

The second Buddhism-inspired suggestion for a healthy relationship is don't see your partner only in terms of yourself. You probably know some people who think everything revolves around them. They do things for others because it gets them what they want. For example, if you received an offer of a new job, your partner might push you to negotiate a higher salary not for your own happiness, but because you are your partner's meal ticket. You're treated like an object as your partner reifies his or her self. In a healthier relationship, your partner would see you as a person with your own thoughts, feelings, experiences and needs that are important to you. It's OK to earn less if it's a more fulfilling job. This mindset, which relationship scientists call responsiveness, shows compassion for you, and ultimately reduces suffering for you and your partner.

The third suggestion derived from Buddhist ideas is that relationships are constructed by two people in synchrony. A Buddhist concept called mutuality (or shared karma) means that two people can have shared intentions and actions that lead to shared consequences. In relationship science, mutuality is called goal interdependence.

Mutuality is beneficial for romantic relationships. For example, suppose your partner comes up behind you and rubs your shoulders. Maybe the gesture means he or she is grateful to be with you or simply wants to be close to you. Or maybe it's a request for sex. Either way, as long as you and your partner agree on the meaning – gratitude, closeness, lust – you are constructing your relationship together. In neuroscience terms, mutuality means that the predictions launched by your brain and your partner's brain in the moment are compatible.

Mutuality is about creating a story together, as more than mere actors in each other's narratives

Being in agreement is not enough, however, if your partner is also reifying you: feeling possessive rather than grateful, or objectifying you rather than connecting with you. These meanings have nothing to do with you per se, and everything to do with your partner's cravings. Even if you're in agreement, your relationship is in trouble. Mutuality is about creating a story together, sharing experiences where you're more than mere actors in each other's narratives.

Together with our colleagues Christy Wilson-Mendenhall at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Paul Condon at Southern Oregon University, we study couples to explore the connections between Buddhism, bonding and body budgets. When a couple interacts, how often do they cherish each other in the moment? When they successfully cherish each another, does it lead to more kindness, compassion and a healthier relationship? And do they balance each other's body budgets in the process?

Until our studies are complete, Buddhism remains an intriguing source of inspiration for building and maintaining meaningful relationships. As Markus writes: 'You can't be a self by yourself.'

This Essay was made possible through the support of a grant from Templeton Religion Trust to Aeon. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Templeton Religion Trust.

Funders to Aeon Magazine are not involved in editorial decision-making, including commissioning or content approval.

Syndicate this Essay



iPadから送信

Saturday, June 09, 2018

Even if you build it, the poor can’t come: against supply-side | Aeon Ideas

Even if you build it, the poor can't come: against supply-side | Aeon Ideas

Even if you build it, the poor can't come: against supply-side

No fly zone: The main terminal at Ciudad Real Airport in Spain. Completed in 2009 at a cost of 1.1 billion euros, the airport is now unused. <em>Photo by Oli Scarff/Getty</em>

'If you build it, they will come.' It's a Latin saying – Si tu id aeficas, ei venient – but it's probably more recognisable because it sounds like what that disembodied voice says to Kevin Costner in the film Field of Dreams (1989). And in the film, Costner does build it (a baseball field) and people do come. In either case, it's a good way of summing up the case for supply-side economics. 

But to understand that case, we need to break it down into its constituent elements. And the thinking behind it goes like this: if you want to stimulate the economy, then cut taxes on the rich (those who invest in and build things) and they will use this extra money to produce more stuff. Why? Because supply creates its own demand, so if they produce more they will sell more, and the economy will expand. An expanding economy, in turn, benefits everybody. There will be more jobs, wages will be higher, and government budget deficits will shrink. This latter effect, of course, might seem counterintuitive. But the argument is that even though tax rates go down, the amount of economic activity these cuts unleash will grow everyone's income to such an extent that the total tax collected by the government, even at these lower rates, will actually go up. That's what the supply-siders contend.

Given that the supply-side approach has been the policy of the Republican Party for decades, this argument has proved convincing to a lot of people. But let's look at it a little more carefully. The notion that supply creates its own demand is known as Say's law, after the French economist Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832) who is credited with its formulation. The thought is that when you produce more, you have to spend additional money to do so. This additional spending, in turn, provides people with extra income, and therefore the wherewithal to buy the additional goods you have created.

Of course, you cannot just build anything. To sell more of something, it has to be something that people actually want. Say himself acknowledged this. But let's focus on the mechanics of how increasing production is supposed to give people the wherewithal to purchase more of what they do want. Unfortunately, the presumptions here just don't make sense.

First, at most, building more goods simply introduces funds equivalent to their cost of production into the economy. But things don't sell for their cost of production­ – no one builds anything unless they think they can price it at a profit. And if you don't think people will have enough new money to pay this price, why would you increase production?

Second, a lot of the costs of production are what economists call 'fixed' costs; that is, the cost of big things such as factories and office buildings and expensive machines and equipment, rather than the costs of the additional labour and supplies necessary to build one extra thing, which are called 'marginal' costs. The total cost of production combines fixed and marginal costs, and fixed costs usually represent the far greater share. This means that when you build more stuff, it is not true that all the costs of production are introduced into the economy as new money. You have merely injected new money to the extent you have incurred additional marginal costs. And it is unlikely that a producer would take the risk of ramping up production in a troubled economic environment if all that could be recovered was the marginal costs.

Third, producers receive many of the goods needed in the production of further goods from their suppliers on credit. Why presume that all the marginal costs of additional production have actually been paid at the time the goods hit the shelves? Or that the ultimate consumer is going to be willing to use credit to increase consumption in troubled times, even if those higher up the chain have used credit to increase production? More concerning still, if consumers do use credit, unless we later provide them with more income, we will have simply set ourselves up for another financial collapse when the teaser rates on their loans time out and further payments become unaffordable, as happened in 2008.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Updates on everything new at Aeon.

None of these problems with supply-side thinking will come as a surprise to anyone who runs a business. They are happy to see their taxes cut, sure, but they are not going to use this extra money to increase production unless they think that their customers will have enough new money to buy these additional goods. And no reasonable business person thinks that enough new money can be introduced by increasing production alone. If they did, record amounts of cash wouldn't be sitting in corporate bank accounts doing nothing, which is what has been happening for years now. Obviously, the people who control this cash don't believe that supply creates its own demand. They think that increasing production without first seeing an increase in demand would be foolhardy.

History is also not on the supply-siders' side. To see the failure of the supply-side approach at the national level, all we need do is look at the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts signed into law by the then president of the United States, George W Bush. These tax cuts did not increase investment or production. Rather, the rich either hoarded this additional money or used it to bid up the price of existing assets, creating asset bubbles and exponentially increasingly economic inequality. And because economic activity did not increase enough to offset the loss of government revenue from reduced taxes, the deficit exploded. To see a similar result on the state level, in turn, we can look at the recent supply-side 'Kansas experiment'. There, massive tax cuts on the rich and corporations almost bankrupted the state.

Remember also that in the 19th century, when Say devised his law, there was a huge amount of untapped demand for new goods; most costs were marginal costs; and most transactions were for cash, not credit. At that time, perhaps it seemed like supply did create its own demand. But not today. Today, to stimulate the economy, we need to increase demand first. And the best way to do this is by putting more money in the hands of the people whom the economist John Maynard Keynes described in 1936 as having the highest 'marginal propensity to consume'. These are not the rich, but rather the poor and middle-class. For, as a group, these are the people who can be counted on to spend all their income whereas, as we have already seen, the rich are likely to keep a chunk of it in cash. Once demand is increased among the poor and middle-class, Keynes argued, production will rise to meet it.

In deciding whether to go with the supply-side or the Keynesian approach to stimulating the economy, there is one more consideration that is relevant. Recent history has shown that we can't be sure that economic expansion alone will solve our wider economic problems. Almost all of the benefits of economic growth during the past 30 years or so have accrued to the rich, and mostly to the super-rich. Real income for most people has been stagnant or even declined. The new jobs that have been created are mostly temporary, low-wage, no-benefit jobs. Permanent, good-wage jobs with benefits have continued to disappear. Rather than giving money to the rich in these circumstances and hoping that it trickles down to the rest of us, as the supply-siders suggest, it would be better to give money to the poor and middle-class, as the Keynesians suggest. The Keynesian approach, after all, has worked many times in the past. Indeed, it's how the West emerged from the Great Depression. But most importantly, if for some reason it doesn't work, at least we will have made the right people better off.



iPadから送信

Monday, June 04, 2018

Sacra doctrina

http://www.sacradoctrina.it/domenicanimilano/s2magazine/css/0/sacra/images/files/ANDREA%20BONAZZI%20Sacra%20Doctrina%202015.01-02.pdf

Balthasar su collegamento tra buddismo e marxismo in Cina

"(...)uno sguardo schietto sulla concreta storia del mondo indica due cose: anzitutto quanto poco ovvia e' stata e ancora e' per la massima parte dell'umanita' extrabiblica la conclusione dalla soggettivita' dell'io finito alla soggettivita' dell'assoluto (si pensi qui anche solo alla massima parte della religiosita' asiatica), e in secondo luogo con quanta forza le ideologie postcristiane (in parte certo in collegamento con la situazione appena menzionata: Cina) possono respingere una simile conclusione come un vero e proprio tradimento alla liberta' umana. Queste due cose devono renderci assai cauti a sottolineare la capacita' effettiva di un 'esistenziale sovrannaturale'".
(H. U. von Balthasar, Teodrammatica, vol. 4, pp. 128-129)

K 神父へ 

私の感想 (ご参考にならないかもしれない)

大変ひろくて深みのある議論、博学多識な論じ方で、すべてをチェックするのはかなり時間がかかります。また、プロテスタントとしてはめずらしく、聖書ばっかりではなく、哲学もさまざまな学問をも扱っていて、とても勉強になります。著作全体として、ヘーゲルの弁証法の色が勝っている印象を受けます。私は若い時にヘーゲルの魅力をたっぷり感じましたので、懐かしく思うところはたくさんあります。ソ連崩壊まえのヨーロッパの雰囲気を感じます。
もちろん、パネンベルクはヘーゲル哲学を、オーソドックスな神学に使えるために、見直したつもりでしょうけれども、これで満足いくかというと、疑問はのこります。
たとえば、「人格」という概念から考えてみる、そして東洋思想における人格という観点から考えてみる。東洋における人格の概念の背後には、人間は感情と感性の収束であるとする考えが常に存在している。これは確かに心理的自意識の分野に統括されるのであるが、同時にそれは、現象界一般と同じく、人格を幻影(あるいはsunyata [空])の世界に属するものでもあるのである。また、それは例えば「輪廻転生」という考えになっていく。つまり、別の肉体の中に同じ本質を有する霊魂が転生するか、それとも「前生」の残存としてのカルマをめぐる新たな心理的な感覚の核が形成されるか。したがってそれは、同一性というよりは「前生」から引きずる継続性の主張である。要するに東洋では存在論的人格の基点を想定せず、心理的人格の核心すらも、単なる幻想であり、「無我」あるいは「マーヤ(幻)」であるとする。
また、超越性の問題は必ずしもこれに続いて登場するわけではなく、例えば「梵我一如」というようなかたちでおかれる。
パネンベルクは東洋思想を相手にしていないでしょうけれども、上記のような問題群にどのように答えるかと私が想像してみると、おそらく次のようになるかと思います。つまり、パネンベルクは、ヘーゲルのように、存在と思想を同一のものとみなし、弁証法的に同一性へ帰る道をたどるでしょう(『精神現象学』参照)。東洋の人々が考える「心」は、西洋の人々が考えるそれとはいくぶん違っていて、相互にすれ違っていることがある、と。東洋の場合は、心というものを、人間の内面性全体の統合的機構として語っており、それをきっちり理性、意志、感情としては整理分類などしない。むしろこれらのものはすべて一つの大きな直感の中に総括される。
さて、(以下私のコメント)伝統的なスコラ思想の理性、意志、感性のきめ細かな分類法には、確かに長所もあれば短所もある。しかしまた、その区別を行わなかったとしても、究極的にかならずしもよりよい結果がもたらされるというわけでもない。少なくとも伝統的な分類の長所・短所をきちんと吟味すべきではないか。今、東洋では西洋的な技術主義と伝統的な神秘主義が不安定ながら共存しており、その伝統的な精神形態の支えもなく、またそれはそのまま続くことは望むべきものでもないであろう。というのは、にわかのそして容赦のない歴史の流れによってその伝統から引き出された東洋の人々も、物質主義と技術至上主義といういま一つの極端に陥らないように心すべきであろう。極端がいま一つの極論を呼ぶことはドイツ観念論哲学の後に、非常に荒削りな唯物論が続いたことでもよくわかるとおりである。
人格のほかに、人間学に深くかかわるテーマとして、たとえば「人権」とか、「自然法」とかをとりあげてみても、多分同じ問題にぶつかりそうだと思います。

Wednesday, May 09, 2018

Antelami Battistero Barlaam e Iosaphat

Il portale del Battista
Da questa porta un tempo entravano i catecumeni, ovvero coloro che intraprendevano il percorso di fede per essere ammessi al Sacramento del Battesimo.
Nella lunetta è narrato il racconto devozionale di origine indiana: si tratta della storia del principe indiano Josaphat, che per mano del vecchio eremita Barlaam, si converte al Cristianesimo. Al centro della scena si trova un albero, sul quale un giovane è intento a prendere del miele da un’arnia, incurante della presenza sottostante di un drago minaccioso, simbolo della morte. Due topi, intanto, stanno rosicchiando la radice dell’albero, mentre ai due lati il sole e la luna cavalcano i loro carri, allegorie del tempo che trascorre inesorabile.

Nel portale sud lo scultore antelamico ha dato immagine a una iconografia di origine probabilmente buddista, molto popolare nel medioevo. È la storia di Barlaam e di Josaphat. Il rilievo rappresenta un giovane che arrampicato su un albero sta gustando un favo di miele e non si accorge, lo sventurato, che due roditori e un drago stanno consumando il tronco alla base. Intanto, a simboleggiare lo scorrere del tempo, le figure allegoriche del Sole e della Luna attraversano il firmamento sui loro carri celesti. Il tutto è trasparente metafora della vita che il Male insidia e che, nel veloce precipitare dei giorni, può finire all'improvviso, proprio quando ci sembra più dolce.
Si tratta del quarto apologo narrato da Barlaam al giovane discepolo Iosaphat, per insegnare la vanita' dell'esistenza.  Probabilmente la prima raffigurazione in occidente. Diversamente dalle altre lunette qui non c'e' nessuna scritta, probabilmente per distinguerlo come episodio non biblico.


Saturday, April 28, 2018

グアルディーニの摂理論 02

グアルディーニの摂理論 02

運命のモデル

以上述べたことをモデル化すると、次のようなメタファーを考えてみよう。
野球やサッカーの試合を控えた二つのチーム。環境は、パシフィックリーグやジェイリーグ、チームのシーズン、各プレイヤーの状態、控えた試合に対する作戦、メンバーの組み方、試合に対する態度(相手を恐れすぎている、あるいは逆に相手を見くびっている)。これら全てが運命(勝ち負け)を決める。
以上と似たような状況は、経済(会社の運営)、教育と学問、健康管理などにもみられる。

運命とは、要するに諸出来事のパターンとしての環境である。けれども、出来事は外から起こるばかりでなく、内面からも起こる。事物からだけではなく、人間からもである。落雷は起こるのは大気の状況からである。人間はそれに影響を及ぼさない。けれども、落雷は具体的な生活環境内に起こり、それによって独特な性格付けされる。事故も、人間と関係ない客観的な因果性から起こるが、人間の反応も必ずある。自己防衛のメカニズムのようなものは必ず働いている。地震によるけが人の研究から明らかになったように、本人が意識しないような内面的な促しに導かれて、多くの場合は考えられないようなタイミングで助かったりすることがある。
この人は運がよかった、あの人は運が悪かったという場合は、どのような意味になるだろうか?あることは今回うまくいくいった。あるいは、今回はうまくできなかった。「今日は運がついていない」という場合、その「今日」は前日とはどのように違っているのか?世界とでも違うのというのか?事実上、違う世界である。なぜなら、私が接している世界は、物理的総体だけではない、私の環境であるから。その世界が外から作り出されるのは半分だけであり、残りの半分は私の内面からであり、絶えず私から性格づけられている。ローマの詩人サッルスティウスの名言のように、「めいめいが自分の運命の作者である」("Faber est suae quisque fortunae")。これは、意味の浅い諺ともなっているが、それ以上の真理性がある。
運命というときは、概念としてまず避けることのできない一連の出来事ということになる。これは、部分的には誤魔化しである。この概念はおそらく、一定の非常に複雑な文脈はそれなりの結果の方に働くのは、意識されないという状況の中であると言いたいであろう。実は、運命の出発点には影響を及ぼせない部分はあるが、他の多くに時点には出来るはず。人間は、自分自身に影響を及ぼすことができるのは疑えないのだから。最初の外部配置


iPadから送信

Wednesday, April 25, 2018

Modello economico di Lonergan spiegato ai semplici

Modello economico di Lonergan spiegato ai semplici

Ci sono 10 pescatori che pescano usando l'arpione un pesce per volta e riescono a mantenere se stessi e le loro famiglie appena.
Uno di questi pescatori dice: datemi un mese di tempo e io vi costruisco una rete. Nel frattempo voi mi passate una razione di pesce per me e la famiglia. Il che significa che i 9 pescatori devono lavorare di più e consumare di meno.
Finita la rete si pesca molto di più e il tenore di vita dei pescatori si alza. Fine di un ciclo.

Il mese passato a costruire la rete Lonergan lo chiama "espansione di surplus", l'aumento del prodotto lo chiama "espansione di base". Questa distinzione è fondamentale e chi non la capisce non capisce il ciclo economico.
L'espansione di surplus serve solo a provocare una espansione di base. Solo l'espansione di base aumenta direttamente il tenore di vita, quella di surplus solo indirettamente. Se si spende troppo o troppo poco per una espansione di surplus, a rimetterci è il tenore di vita del gruppo.

La razione di pesce che i 9 pescatori forniscono al pescatore/imprenditore rappresenta il flusso di denaro che passa dai consumatori al capitale.

Mettiamo che il nostro pescatore/imprenditore dica: datemi un anno di tempo e io vi costruisco una macchina che fa le reti da pesca. Nel frattempo voi mi mantenete e in più mi date due uomini che mi diano una mano. Questa è un' espansione di surplus che non necessariamente si traduce in una espansione di base. C'è un limite al pesce pescabile e un limite alla manodopera.

Se la macchina per fare reti da pesca sforna troppe reti si viene ad avere una saturazione del mercato e parte dell'investimento andrebbe sciupata.

Capire la differenza tra i due cicli, quello di base e quello di surplus, e i delicati rapporti tra i due in termini di ritmo (tempo) e di flussi, è l'unico modo per evitare il ripetersi cronico di boom economici e delle susseguenti depressioni o crisi.

Per il resto rimando ai testi di riferimento.



iPadから送信

Monday, April 23, 2018

Lawrence, F.G.- Spaccapelo, N.A. – Tomasi, M., Il teologo e l'economia, L’orizzonte economico di B. Lonergan, Roma, Armando 2009


Lawrence, F.G.- Spaccapelo, N.A. – Tomasi, M., Il teologo e l'economia, L’orizzonte economico di B. Lonergan, Roma, Armando 2009

cap settimo (traduzione)
pag 177  "They blame greed, But the prime cause in ignorance"
Essi danno la colpa all'avidità, ma la causa principale è l'ignoranza
pag 181 "In equity....
"Secondo giustizia l'espansione di base dovrebbe essere diretta a sollevare il tenore di vita di tutta la società. Questo non succede. E la ragione per cui questo non succede non è quella su cui insistono i moralisti di ristrette vedute. Essi danno la colpa all'avidità, ma la causa principale è l'ignoranza. Le dinamiche della produzione di surplus e di base, della espansione di surplus e di base, profitto di surplus e di base non sono capiti, formulati, insegnati"
pag 181 "The basic...
"Le aspettative di base erronee dipendono dal non distinguere tra il normale profitto, che può essere costante, e un dividendo sociale che invece cambia. Cresce durante la maggiore espansione di surplus; diminuisce mentre l'espansione va estinguendosi; svanisce quando l'espansione è finita"
pag 181 "the excess...
... "l'eccedenza di conti (di pagamento) ricevibili rispetto ai conti pagabili nella situazione stazionaria. Questa eccedenza deve esserci perche la ditta non fallisca e perche le persone responsabili della fondazione e della continuazione della ditta ricevano un proporzionato tenore di vita. Un profitto che è normale nella situazione stazionaria non è meno normale nella espansione di surplus"
pag 182 "It is ....
"Fa parte della natura di una espansione di surplus di preparare la strada per una molto più' grande espansione di base, perchè le attività di surplus stanno a quelle di base come un flusso sta a un flusso di flussi. Pero' una espansione di surplus richiede risparmio, e una enorme espansione di surplus richiede un enorme risparmio. Al contrario, una espansione di base richiede un sempre maggiore consumo. Cosi' che, la buona saggezza di un periodo di espansione di surplus, durante una espansione di base deve lasciare il posto a un tipo di saggezza molto diverso."
Pag 182 “In other words”…
“In altre parole, quando il profitto comincia a calare, sembra una brutta cosa perche’ il solo precetto che essi hanno è ‘frugalità e intraprendenza’. Ma a loro viene detto che la funzione della intraprendenza è il profitto”
Pag 183   “Benevolence and ….
“Benevolenza e intraprendenza. Per esempio, piccole industrie agli inizi che assumono gente a cui non si puo insegnare molto; compresi i disoccupati della vostra economia”
Pag 184 “The difference…
“La differenza non è semplicemente una differenza interiore, un cambio di mentalità e atteggiamento. Perche il modo piu’ semplice per ottenere grandi risparmi e quindi promuovere uma espansione di surplus, è di aumentare le entrate dei ricchi che non hanno modo di spendere ulteriormente per innalzare il loro tenore di vita. Ancora, il modo piu’ semplice di promuovere il consumo è aumentare le entrate dei poveri, e cosi’ rendere possibile di migliorare il tenore di vita”
Pag 184-185  “Now to change…
“Cambiare il proprio tenore di vita in un modo che si possa notare, vuol dire cambiare stile di vita. Ciò presuppone aver afferrato nuove idee. Se queste nuove idee devono essere al di sopra del tipo di pubblicità che correntemente fa successo, ci vuole una seria educazione. Infine, capire cosa sia veramente una seria educazione e ciò nonostante, accettare quella sfida è ciò che costituisce la più grande sfida dell’economia moderna”
Pag 186  “The ideal …
“L’ideale del periodo è ‘un pollo in ogni pentola’. I sindacati costringono ad un aumento dei salari. La pubblicità dirige le masse verso un nuovo stile di vita. I dirigenti intelligenti favoriscono entrambe le cose:  aumento dei salari per aumentare fatturato; e usano la pubblicità per rendere la loro parte di fatturato il più grande possibile. Per aver un ritratto del puro caso della fase materialista, sarebbe  difficile cercare un modello superiore alla nostra scena americana.”

Pag 187  “We have …
“Abbiamo avuto la più grande espansione di surplus della rivoluzioni industriale e scientifica. Ma non siamo ancora in grado di padroneggiare la espansione di base. All’inizio è stato reso difficile dalla ricerca a livello mondiale di un bilanciamento favorevole del commercio estero. Quando l’economia politica ha superato il mercantilismo, è rimasta attaccata alla saggezza pratica che guidava l’espansione di surplus e all’ideale scientifico delle necessarie leggi di natura che vengono dedotte da sicuri principi”   
Pag 188 “Eventually …
“Alla fine attraverso scioperi, legislazione del lavoro e l’applicazione dell’ingegnosità scientifica a pratiche invenzioni, i tavoli sono stati girati. In un certo numero di paesi oggi c’è una enorme produzione di beni e di servizi. Ma perfino in quei paesi c’è molta povertà e arretratezza. E nel resto del mondo i vecchi metodi di cooperazione e sopravvivenza stanno per essere, o sono già stati, persi senza che nuovi metodi abbiano preso piede in modo effettovo.”
Pag 189 “An ecology …
“Un’ecologia è un insieme di schemi di ricorrenza interrelati e interconnessi. Anche le ecologie hanno la loro probabilità di emergenza e di sopravvivenza. Una serie di ecologie può formare una catena di dipendenza sequenziale, con ecologie precedenti che fondano la probabilità di emergenza di quelle successive”
Pag 190 “Human ….
“Le comunità umane inventano i loro schemi di ricorrenza: i modi e i mezzi di cooperazione più comunemente capiti e accettati. Tra questi modi ci sono le ditte che continuano a produrre beni e servizi insieme con i complessi familiari che comprano questi beni e servizi. Questa è l’economia che è una struttura che poggia sulle ecologie della natura mentre sottosta a strutture sociali e culturali”
Pag 191 “The elements ….
“Gli elementi (del modello economico) dipendono (dalle scienze sociali). Io dico che l’economia è un’ecologia. Cosa succede in questa ecologia? Si tratta della ricorrenza di operazioni di famiglie e ditte, e le radici degli scambi cambiano costantemente. Perche? Perché gli esseri umani sono intelligenti e prima o poi capiscono come migliorare la propria situazione. La significatività della competizione sta nel fatto che la gente pensa.”



1

グアルディーニの摂理論 01

グアルディーニの摂理論 01

R. Guardini, Welt una Person, 1939

世界と人格(人間)
後期の中世、特にルネサンスの時代には「自然」naturaという言葉が段々重要性を増してくる。自然とは森羅万象である。人間が手をつける以前の現実全体。星々、地球、植動物、人間も。その全体は、深みのあるもの、有力なもの、素晴らしいものとして経験され、提供される充満性として知覚される。しかし、同時に認識され得る(されるべき)もの、取得され得る(されるべき)もの、積極的に変え得る(変えるべき)ものとしても経験される。自然は認識と活動の対象と同時に、価値基準、認識と活動の価値基準ともなる。「自然」とは、正しいこと、健全、知恵深い、完全なるものである。逆に、「不自然」とは、虚偽的、逸脱、不健全、堕落したものとなる。
自然は全部理解されているわけではない。むしろ、不可思議なことは多いが、究極的なものという性格を持つようになる。自然の彼方に遡ることはできない。原理である。「自然」といえば、それ以上は問われない。
人間は自然の産物ではあるが、同時に自然を観察する者、探求する者、取得する者、変える者として、自然と対面する。「不自然」と言えるのは人間だけである。自然から離れて、自然に帰る(戻す)のは人間の特権である。ここから、「主体」Subjectという考えが生まれた。主体という考えはどんどん大きくなる。近代となると、自然と主体は、二つの対極する究極のとなる。人間が自然を使って「文化」を作る。

以上の観点から、「天地創造」とはどういうことになるだろうか?おとぎ話に聞こえないだろうか。とりあえず、別の観点から世界と人間の関係をみてみよう。人間は世界の一断片だけではない。みて来たように、人間は世界と向き合っている。世界(Welt)に生きているというより、少なくとも部分的に自分が作った「環境」(Umwelt)に住んでいる。人間と環境は影響し合う間柄である。この環境は、さまざまな出来事としてとらえた場合は、すなわち人間の運命でもある(日本に生まれていたら80才まで生きる可能性は高い)。具体的なこの一個人に起こり得る出来事の総体の中に一定の形がある。すべてが一個人に起こるのではなく、一定の部分である。諸出来事の総体の中のパターンは、少なくとも部分的に一個人の影響力による。ただし、その影響力は全部必ずしも目に見えてくると限らない。本人にでさえ隠れている部分もあり、意識されない部分もある。ウムヴェルトとは、広い世界の中において当の本人に関係する事物や諸出来事で構成されている。当の本人の選択でもある。その選択は主に感覚による。この場合、感覚とは人間一般の感覚でもあり、当の本人のそれである。私が知覚しないものは、私の世界に入らない。物理的にだけ影響している。犬と比べれば人間は嗅覚音痴である。さらに、選択は本能に、意志力にもよる。関心の持てないものは、私にとっては存在しないに等しい。もっと正確に言えば、関心を持った場合と比べれば、より少なくあるいは異なった形で働いている。最後に、選択は本人の性格の特徴によって決まる。欲深い人間、従って深いところで不安定な人間の周囲にある物事の反応は、無欲と同時に強い自信を持った人間への反応とは異なる。たえず何かに追われる人間、たえず何かを求める人間の存在の仕方は、満足で落ち着いた人間の生き方とは異なった形になる。愛のある人と硬い心の持ち主、悪意のある人の環境はそれぞれ違う。正直でウソをつかない人とウソつきでずる賢い人の環境も異なる。おおらかで気前の良い人とケチで権力ばかりを求める人も違う。異なった才能も異なった環境を生み出す。器用な人と不器用な人もそうである。環境は道具の扱い方にかかっている部分は大きい場合、農業は頭に浮かんでくるが、楽器や球技もそうである、その環境は実り豊か、フレドリーで快適になったり、あるいはむしろ、手のつけにくい、無味乾燥で、敵意のあるものになったりする。道具を擬人化すべきではないが、人によってはピアノは、たんぼは、テニスのラケットは、相手になってくれる、協力してくれる。あるいはしてくれない。道具には意志はないが、本質的な法律、一定の真理を持っている。その働きは尊重されるのとされないのでは、助けとなったり、
あるいはむしろ破壊力となったりする。道具は、何かを「求めて」いると言えば、擬人化でおとぎ話となってしまう。が、事物は単なる対象ではない、それ自体として意味があり、環境の構造を決める方向性によって、その働きも変わってくる。


iPhoneから送信

Saturday, April 07, 2018

Cara M.

Cara M.

premetto che non sono un esperto di economia, ma certi discorsi mi fanno venire in mette ideologie che abbiamo sentito ripetere ad nauseam.
Cerca per esempio su internet Malthusianismo oppure NeoMalthusianesimo, oppure Rapporto sui limiti dello sviluppo oppure Club di Roma.
In breve, certe previsioni sul collasso economico del pianeta risalgono a più di due secoli fa e sono state tutte smentite ampiamente e a più riprese. Questo non toglie che certi circoli culturali, tra cui il Manifesto si distingue, hanno dei precisi motivi per ripeterli e per spaventare la gente. Tra questi motivi si può accennare a una mentalità anti-natalista, un pregiudizio elitista verso le popolazioni in via di sviluppo, ecc. Se poi si scava un po' non è difficile avvertire un sottile ma profondo odio per la cultura umanista e cristiana, in modo particolare per la chiesa cattolica e per quella che viene percepita come intransigenza in campo di controllo delle nascite.
Se senti sempre la stessa campana, dopo un po' ti sembrerà essere L unica. Io a Rosolino ho già suggerito di leggere il Compendio della dottrina sociale della chiesa che si può leggere gratis su internet.
Naturalmente i gonzi preferiscono spendere soldi per leggere i libri degli ultimi imbonitori e venditori di balle per le strade.
Ciao e a risentirci.



iPadから送信

Monday, April 02, 2018

Il fior di loto e la croce

Il fior di loto e la croce

I primi contatti tra cristiani e buddisti sono documentati gia' al tempo di Clemente alessandrino (cfr. Stromata I,15). Si suppongono influssi sui monaci del deserto e sulla formazione della teologia negativa, anche se non possediamo documenti. Un vasto campo ancora inesplorato riguarda i parallelismi e le similarita' con certi vangeli apocrifi (e.g. Tommaso). Una delle cose piu' curiose e' il fatto che  un racconto della vita del Budda nella leggenda dei santi Barlaam (il Sublime, un titolo del Budda) e Giosafat (verosimilmente derivato da "bodhisattva") sia entrato a far parte del Martyrologium Romanum, e per lungo tempo quindi, del calendario ufficiale dei santi della
Chiesa.
--------
"Apud Indos, Persis finitimos, sanctorum Barlaam et Josaphat, quorum actus mirandos sanctus Joannes Danascenus conscripsit". Cosi' recita  per il 27 novembre il "Vetus Martyrologium Romanum A.D. MDCCCCLVI" fruibile in rete http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/1856-
1856,_Absens,_Vetus_Martyrologium_Romanum,_LT.pdf [17 aprile 2018]. Si pensi che la leggenda e' raffigurata gia' in una lunetta del Battistero di Parma opera dell'Antelami (circa 1150- circa 1230).
--------
Sicuramente vi furono dei contatti tra i buddisti e i cristiani di origine siriaca, attivi in Cina dalla prima meta' del settimo secolo fino al quattordicesimo. Si continua a discutere in quale misura tale incontro abbia influenzato il buddismo cinese fino alla sua continuazione in quello giapponese. Il "kanjou", a tuttoggi uno dei riti piu' comuni della setta Shingon, che si suppone risalire al viaggio di studio che il fondatore ha fatto  in questo periodo, consiste nel versare acqua sulla testa dell'adepto mentre il bonzo recita un "mantra" che, si dice, potrebbe essere stata in  origine la versione cinese della invocazione trinitaria dei cristiani siriaci.
-------
Nel cimitero monumentale del monte Koya, montagna sacra della setta Shingon, e' possibile vedere una replica a dimensioni naturali della cosidetta "Stele Nestoriana", dono di Elizabeth Anna Gordon (1851–1925), una studiosa inglese che era convinta che buddismo e cristianesimo avessero una comune radice.
 Gordon, E. A., The Lotus gospel: or, Mahayana Buddhism and its symbolic teachings compared historically and geographically with those of Catholic Christianity / (Tokyo : Waseda University Library, 1911; Idem, Messiah, the ancestral hope of the ages, "the desire of all nations," as proved from the records on the sun-dried bricks of Babylonia, the papyri and pyramids of Egypt, the frescoes of the Roman catacombs, and on the Chinese incised memorial stone at Choʾang, (Tokyo, Keiseisha, [c1909]); Idem, Symbols of 'The Way' : Far East and West / (Tokyo : Maruzen, 1916); Idem, "World-Healers", or The Lotus gospel and its Bodhisattvas ... (Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto, Shanghai ..., London :
E.L. Morice, [1912]). Si veda anche Abe, Ryuichi, "The Weaving of Mantra: Kukai and the construction of Esoteric Buddhist Discourse". Columbia University Press, 1999.


Per una introduzione alla letteratura cristiana cinese di epoca Tang, si veda: M. Nicolini-Zani, La via radiosa per l'Oriente. I testi e la storia del primo incontro del cristianesimo con il mondo culturale e religioso cinese (secoli VII-IX), Qiqajon, Magnano 2006. 


Matsunaga A., The Buddhist Philosophy of Assimilation. The Historical Development of the Honji-Suijaku Theory. Tokyo 1969.
--------
Le terme honji suijaku ou honchi suijaku (本地垂迹?) dans la terminologie religieuse japonaise renvoie à une théorie largement acceptée
jusqu'à l'ère Meiji selon laquelle des divinités bouddhistes indiennes ont choisi d'apparaître au Japon comme des kami natifs afin de plus
facilement convertir et sauver les Japonais1,2. Cette théorie affirme que certains kami (mais pas tous) ne sont en fait que des
manifestations locales (le suijaku (垂迹?), littéralement, une « trace ») de divinités bouddhistes, (le honji (本地?), littéralement, «
terre d'origine »)1,3. Les deux entités forment un tout indivisible appelé gongen et, en théorie, devraient avoir un statut égal, mais dans
l'histoire cela n'a pas toujours été le cas4. Au début de l'époque de Nara par exemple, le honji est jugé plus important, et ce n'est que
plus tard que les deux en viennent à être considérés comme égaux4. Au cours de la fin de l'époque de Kamakura il est même proposé que les
kami sont les divinités d'origine et les bouddhas leurs manifestations (voir la section honji suijaku inversé ci-dessous)4.
La théorie n'a jamais été systématisée, mais n'en est pas moins très répandue et très influente1. Elle est considérée comme la clé de voûte
de l'édifice du shinbutsu shūgō (harmonisation des divinités bouddhistes et des kami japonais)5.
--------
灌頂(かんじょう, 梵: abhiṣeka, abhiṣecana[1])とは、菩薩が仏になる時、その頭に諸仏が水を注ぎ、仏の位(くらい)に達したことを証明すること[1]
。密教においては、頭頂に水を灌いで諸仏や曼荼羅と縁を結び、正しくは種々の戒律や資格を授けて正統な継承者とするための儀式のことをいう。本項で
は密教における潅頂について述べる。
-----

The first documentation of Christianity entering China was written on an 8th-century stone tablet known as the Nestorian Stele. It records that Christians reached the Tang dynasty capital Xi'an in 635 and were allowed to establish places of worship and to propagate their faith. The leader of the Christian travelers was Alopen.[12]
Some modern scholars question whether Nestorianism is the proper term for the Christianity that was practiced in China, since it did not adhere to what was preached by Nestorius. They instead prefer to refer to it as "Church of the East", a term which encompasses the various forms of early Christianity in Asia.[13]

The Dunhuang manuscripts are a cache of important religious and secular documents discovered in the Mogao Caves of Dunhuang, China, in the early 20th century. Dating from the 5th to early 11th centuries, the manuscripts include works ranging from history and mathematics to folk songs and dance. There are also a large number of religious documents, most of which are Buddhist, but other religions including Daoism, Nestorian Christianity and Manichaeism are also represented.

In 782, the Indian Buddhist missionary Prajna arrived in Chang'an, bearing rich treasures of sutras and other scriptures. Unfortunately, these were written in Indian languages. He consulted the local Nestorian bishop, Adam, who had already translated parts of the Bible into Chinese. Together, Buddhist and Christian scholars worked amiably together for some years to translate seven copious volumes of Buddhist wisdom. Probably, Adam did this as much from intellectual curiosity as from ecumenical good will, and we can only guess about the conversations that would have ensued:

In Japan, these works became the founding texts of the great Buddhist schools of the Middle Ages. All the famous movements of later Japanese history, including Zen, can be traced to one of those ancient schools and, ultimately - incredibly - to the work of a Christian bishop.

By the 12th century, flourishing churches in China and southern India were using the lotus-cross. The lotus is a superbly beautiful flower that grows out of muck and slime. No symbol could better represent the rise of the soul from the material, the victory of enlightenment over ignorance, desire, and attachment. For 2,000 years, Buddhist artists have used the lotus to convey these messages in countless paintings and sculptures. The Christian cross, meanwhile, teaches a comparable lesson, of divine victory over sin and injustice, of the defeat of the world. Somewhere in Asia, Yeshua's forgotten followers made the daring decision to integrate the two emblems, which still today forces us to think about the parallels between the kinds of liberation and redemption offered by each faith.

When modern scholars like Peter Phan try to place Christianity in an Asian and Buddhist context, they are resuming a task begun at least 1,500 years ago.
Philip Jenkins

Jacobs First things
We can easily see that the image depicts a cross, but it takes a moment to realize that the base of the picture"the root from which the cross is growing"is a lotus flower, the symbol of Buddhist ­enlightenment."

This is indeed a remarkable image, but does it mean what Jenkins assumes it means? I wonder if he is aware of the common ancient tradition in Orthodox Christianity that depicts the Cross atop a skull, which is clearly meant to say that death is conquered by the Cross, not that it is the root or the soil from which Christian faith grows.


iPadから送信

Friday, March 09, 2018

Thursday, March 08, 2018

La vita non è una tragedia in primo piano ma una commedia in campo…

La vita non è una tragedia in primo piano ma una commedia in campo lungo

Charlie Chaplin
Life is a tragedy when seen in close-up, but a comedy in long-shot.
 
- Charlie Chaplin (チャップリン) -
 
人生はクローズアップで見れば悲劇だが、ロングショットで見れば喜劇だ。


iPadから送信

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Hさんへのメール(その二)

 
Hさん

 

パウロの書簡には、キリストは「新しいアダム」として紹介されていますね。これは、どういうことかと、問うてみた場合は、かなりの深みのある言葉ということに気づきますが、例えば、次のような事柄が含まれているだろうと思われます。「新しいアダム」とは、古いアダムの抱えた問題に解決をつける人だと。古いアダムが抱えた問題とは、神学の専門用語では「原罪」と言います。(注意:原罪に関して不十分な認識を持っていると話は通じなくなる)。分かりやすく言うと、新しいアダムは原罪を持っていない、ということになります。ところが、アウグスティヌスあたりから、議論されてきたように、原罪は人間の誕生によって継承される、というような認識があって、そしたら、イエスは人間のマリアから生まれることで、原罪を受け継ぐことになってしまう。イエスから新しい人類が始まる。「新しい創造」(Kaine Ktisis, 2コリ5・17など参照)が始まった。そしたら、イエスはアダムの原罪を受け継いでいないということを見せるために、マリアにも原罪がないということが必要になってくる。新しい人類は、昔の預言者によって準備されているが、具体的なスタートとして、預言者の子孫であるマリアからである、と。かつて、原罪のないアダムを創造されたゴッドは、原罪のないマリアを造ることはできない、となれば、これは本当におかしな話になります。当然すぎるぐらい当然ですね。でないと、「新しいアダム」という考えた方の重要な中身はわからなくなる。

聖書にないから、という反論はプロテスタントの古い偏見で、すでにトリエント公会議(五百年前)で論駁されていますが、無知な者だけは現在でも繰り返している。特に日本では中途半端な説えを述べる人は目立ちます。

 

以上、同じような話は、聖母被昇天と煉獄(ところで、煉獄を信じない人はダンテの『神曲』を読んだことがない、ということはすぐに推測できます。やはり、無知ですね。無知なものに耳を貸すとどうなる?)についてもできるのですが、長すぎることになるので、別の機会に譲ります。

 

それより以前の話をしておきます。教会の教えには何千年の深い知恵が詰まっていて、知っている人でしたら誰でも認める、史上トップレベルな思考者(アウグスティヌスやトマス・アクイナス)によって吟味されています。ですから、それに反論を唱えるためにはかなりの覚悟が必要でしょう。トマス・アクイナスやアウグスティヌスに勝てるというような気分が必要。これが、かなり傲慢なひとでないとできない。ところが、信仰のことを理解するために逆の態度が必要です。つまり、謙虚さですね。自分の小さな頭や視野に信頼をおくのではなく、本ものの知恵のある者に学び、その知恵に頼ることです。

 

それでは、お元気で

 

ボナツィ

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

Hさんへのメール


Hさん

 

メールを受け取りました。

P・ティリッヒというアメリカの有名な神学者は、「信仰」あるいは「信じる」ということを、「究極的関心」と言う風に説明しています。ティリッヒは、マルコ福音書から次の言葉を引用しています。「心を尽くし、精神を尽くし、思いを尽くし、力を尽くして、あなたの神である主を愛しなさい」(マルコ1230)。「心」「精神」「思い」「力」という四つのものとの関係と聖書的な意味について説明するとかなり長くなりますので、おおざっぱに言って「知情意」と言われる場合の「知」「情」「意」に対応すると考えていただいてもいい。

したがって、「信じる」とは、知情意という人間の精神機能すべてがしかも統合された形で関わっている全人格的なものと考えるべきなのです。ですから、信仰=認識(不完全なあやふやな知識)、信仰=意志(無理に信じようとすること、オウム真理教みたいな他律的精神性)、信仰=感情(主観的な気分、独りよがり)といった理解は、よくありがちな信仰への誤解であると言わねばならない。人間の精神全体に関わることなんですが、それは「宗教的」信仰に限ったことではない。我々は日常的にさまざまなものを信頼することによって生きており、人間として生きる上で何ものをもまったく信じないということはおそらく不可能でしょう(電車や飛行機に乗ることを考えてみてください)。つまり、「信じる」とは人間だれしも経験することであり、特別な感受性か鋭い感覚に限ったことではない。相手の誠実さに信頼し、約束を行い、それを遵守したり破ったりする自由と責任を担っているということは、人格的存在者としての人間の基本に属するものであり、宗教的信仰と日常的な信頼関係との両者に共通の構造をもっている。

この共通の構造を表現する用語として「関心」という概念が採用される理由を考えてみると、人間は日常生活において、さまざまな対象に関心をもちながら生活している。家族、恋人、仕事、趣味、事件、食事など。その意味で、「人間である」とは、世界の中で出会う事物や出来事に対して関心を持って生きることであると言い換えることができる。関心をもたない人間はありえない、というぐらいなもの(だから、皆何かを「信じて」いるといえる)。「信仰」とは、人間の全体性に関わる重要なものであると言えるでしょう。

次に「究極性」について。これは、先のマルコ福音書の言葉で言えば、「…尽くして」と表現されていた信仰の性格に関わる。宗教における「信仰」は、日常的な関心(「心」「精神」「思い」「力」)を最高度に高め集中させるところに成立するのであって、真剣で強烈な愛にきわめて類似したものなんです。信仰の対象となるものは信仰する者にとって特別な意味深い価値あるものとして経験されるのです。日常的関心は、生活の一部分にしか関わらない(学生時代は学校に深く関心していても、一生続くわけではない)のに対して、宗教的信仰が生活の一部分ではなく、その全体、つまり全生活、全人生に関わっているということです。信仰者の人生全体の意味がかけられているのです。

ところが、全人生と言っても、これまで経験した部分に関しても、全部理解しているわけではない。これからの部分は、全く分からないから、自分から「神信仰」を生み出すことはできない。信仰の対象を「示して」もらうことが必要なのです。

 

話は変わりますが、この前いただいたプリント(『カトリック教会の文書資料集』)を見たが、これは専門家の使う書物であって、言ってみれば、医者さんが医者になるために勉強する書物みたいなもので、一般の人には分かるはずがない。もっと分かりやすいものを読んでくださるようにお勧めします。例えば、『カトリック教会のカテキズム』。

 

それでは、今回はこの辺で終わりたいと思います。お元気で。

 

ボナツィ


 

 

Sunday, February 11, 2018

Il problema del dolore (Teodrammatica, vol. V)

(Rm 8, 19-26)Il dolore qui non viene visto come un destino che chiude il mondo terreno in se stesso e lo defrauda piu' che tutto di ogni trascendenza -- "sull'aldila' ogni prospettiva e' venuta meno" -- e ci incita a lavorare piu' che tutto al miglioramento dello stato intollerabile del mondo. No, ma il dolore viene visto come un fenomeno che ci viene imposto quale compito dall'alto e che parla di aldila' con tutto il volume del suo linguaggio.
   L'inesplicabile (per noi) eccesso di dolore nel mondo non dovrebbe consistere, in ultima analisi e nella sua totalita', in questa trascendenza per lo piu' inconsapevole? Non dovrebbe essere l'iniziazione al grande atto del dono di se' che conclude la nostra vita nel tempo? Iniziazione anche la' dove colui che soffre, e che viene intimamente devastato contro volonta', insorge con tutte le sue fibbre contro un fenomeno che gli appare insano e che ha su di lui un dominio gelido assoluto? Tutto questo sangue invano versato non dovrebbe alla fine avere qualcosa a che fare con il solo "sangue prezioso", mediante cui siamo "comperati" e "lavati"?

(H. U. von Balthasar, Teodrammatica, vol. V, pp. 423-424)

Monday, January 22, 2018

祈りというドラマ

祈りというドラマ

日常生活の中で「自分」と呼んでいるものも、演劇(ドラマ)的構築物である。主に記憶によって、ひげそりするたびにかがみでみること、「内面を覗く」という、いとも簡単に外れやすい活動で、構築されている。普段から、この構築物を「自分」と呼び、その舞台を「現実の世界」と呼んでいる。さて、祈りという状態は、この「現実の世界」および「現実の自分」とは、岩のようにしっかりとしたものに程遠い、ということに気づくことから成り立っている。なるほど、自分は体でもって舞台を去って、舞台裏に移ることはできない。観客席に座ることもできない。けれども、舞台裏とか、観客席とかいう、そういう別の場所もあるということを思い出すことができる。現実性に乏しいこの自分は、ピエロか、英雄か、あるいは政治家であったりするが、ルージュの下に実際の自己を持っていて、舞台から離れた生活もある、ということも思い出す。この演劇的な自分は、実際の自己をどこかで隠していなければ、舞台に乗ることは一切ありえないのだから。祈りにおいて、この実際の自己は、言葉を作り出すために闘うのだ。それは、ステージ上の俳優と交わす台詞ではない。何と呼ぶべきだろうか迷ってしまう。誰もがすべてを発明したものだから、脚本家というべきか、彼は我々すべてを指示するから、監督というべきか、彼は演じ方を見ていて、我々すべてのパフォーマンスを判断するから、視聴者というべきか、その彼と交わす言葉を作り出すために闘うのだ。

(C. S. Lewis, Letters to Malcolm, 1964, pp. 122-123)





iPadから送信

Sunday, January 07, 2018

Disincantamento del mondo

"L'uomo moderno non porta piu' gli occhiali iridescenti che la fede cristiana offriva all'uomo osservatore del mondo (un mondo che era stato trivato 'assai buono' da Dio, forse nella prospettiva che le sue perdite sarebbero state riequilibrate dal sacrificio della croce). L'uomo moderno scopre la parte notturna del mondo: aggressivita', volonta' di potenza, reciproco annientamento, e nella sfera della storia il tragico della cultura, il cui proseguimento secondo tutte le apparenze conduce al suo proprio annientamento. Una luce si e' spenta; il paesaggio dell'essere appare livido e ostile. Da nessuna parte si riesce a percepire la vittoria sul peccato mediante la morte sacrificale di Cristo; la fede si vede posta fuori combattimento dal sovrappeso del reale. Come il cristiano ha da lottare in maniera nuova per la possibilita' della fede, cosi' il non cristiano ha di fronte l'angosciosa domanda se egli possa accusare una qualche istanza per lo stato del mondo (Sigmund Freud riconosce che questa istanza non c'e' e che l'uomo 'oppresso' deve venire a capo di ogni cosa e di se stesso rimanendo muto), o se debba vedere nel male una pura energia di natura. Anche il cristiano finisce col dubitare che 'i cieli e la terra siano pieni della gloria di Dio' e che per un simile mondo ci sia davvero da offire soltanto lode e ringraziamento. Egli si lascia in tal modo convincere dal non cristiano che e' piu' intelligente dedicarsi unicamente a smuovere le cose e a cambiare un mondo cosi' mal riuscito"

(H. U. von Balthasar, Introduzione al dramma. Teo-drammatica vol. 1, Milano 1980, p. 49)